The Country has worse problems than a poor economy, high fuel prices, high unemployment, nukes in Iran etc, etc...
If we allow this President to circumvent the First Amendment.
Regardless of the religious faith the Government imposes mandates on that the religious faith believes is morally repugnant.

Check out the homily in St. John Indiana.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltTd81XpDnc&feature=youtu.be

Jeff Czeczok

You're missing an important distinction, Keith. The health insurance plan doesn't force any woman to take birth control pills, whether they are Catholic or not. The health insurance plan merely requires that the birth control pills be available to all women. That sounds fair to me.

I really love how religious institutions pick and choose when they agree with a separation of church and state... when its convenient for them.

Where was this outrage when zealots were pushing for prayer in tax payer funded schools? What about when they pushed for "intelligent design" to be taught as a... SCIENTIFIC THEORY in tax payer funded schools?

Where was this support for church state separation when they added "under god" to the Pledge of Allegiance back in the 1950s?

When two individuals wanted the same right to marry their partner the same way their counterparts do... but the religious outrage pushed and pandered and threw their bibles and everything else they had to pass laws in many states to deny that right to certain individuals because... of their religious beliefs. Where was the support for church state separation then?

Don't [filtered word] about separation of church and state.. and then use it when it is convenient for your argument. Either you are for it... or you are not.

finally something from this slanted stain that makes a bit o' sense.
I am dubious, however, that when Keith says, "we agree with the Pontiff's assessment" that he really speaks for Mikey and gang.

This issue is pretty black and white.

The Catholic Church considers the morning after pill to be an abortion. The Catholic church considers abortion to be murder. The United States Government is telling Catholic Institutions that they are required to provide money for what they have determined is a murder.

You can dislike the Catholic church's position. The Vatican has had out of date or odd rules since before the advent of modern science. You can dislike their rules all you want.

The document under which the Federal Government is allowed to operate expressly prohibits the government from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

It's not about fairness, feelings or sexual harassment. It's about the law.

One cannot be forcibly made into a Christian by denying them other options, it is only with free will and personal choice that one can accept Jesus in their heart (and have it mean anything).

And the points you bring up do seem to make the issue slightly more complicated, I can understand your view. But I don't agree that the government can't set basic standards for health insurance providers when operating outside the realm of the church's primary function (place of worship).

Hospitals and universities, regardless of ownership, are and have always been subject to other federal labor laws. You seemingly agree that they should abide by some:

"If the Catholic church was making, as a term of employment, it's employees disavow all birth control I would see where you are coming from"

What defines the distinction between which laws they should have to abide by, and which they should be exempt from?

The question that arises is whether the moral costs for remaining self-insured in modern times outweigh the convenience of paying for secular-based health insurance when providing that coverage to their hospital and university employees operating in the secular world.

I certainly shudder along with JB at the thought of Santorum being appointed head of HHS, and would have to agree that "The federal government mandating religious institutions provide murder is downright wrong".

I do, however, reject the premise in that statement as it relates to this issue, or that our American government must accept the Vatican's definition of anything when it comes to public policy in matters relating to operations outside the boundaries of their church.

(After all, if President Kennedy wouldn't take his marching orders from the Pope, why should a muslim president?) - KIDDING!!!

Back to seriousness: I would just as strongly object to anyone advocating our American government have it's labor or medical insurance policy decisions dictated by Muslim mullahs, or Christian Scientists, or Rastifarians. One sect, hallowed as it may or may not be, should not dictate the rules which apply to all in the secular world, particularly for non-believers or non-members of that church.

I am a fan of Freedom, and believe in women's rights, and in both those interests I believe women employed by a university or hospital who may have a faith different than their employer have every right to have their basic medical costs covered by their medical insurance.

Certainly the overwhelming majority of actual claims submitted will be for normal, widely-accepted versions of birth control, not for abortion or anything the general public would ever consider "murder". The increased availability of birth control prescription coverage will do more to prevent abortions than any amount of wishful thinking, and that end result should be welcome news to anyone.

In response to "You seem to be comfortable with the federal government mandating that religious institutions decide between their morals or money", I draw a clear distinction which seemingly you've overlooked. In matters relating directly to the church, I strongly defend their right to near autonomy, and so did President Obama by making churches exempt from the very beginning.

Where I believe they become subject to the laws and regulations of the secular government is in enterprises which are clearly outside the boundaries of providing a place of worship for their followers.

If a church decided to open up a casino, or run a liquor store and keep it open 24 hours a day, (particularly if it's a church we're not a member of), I'm guessing most of us would probably agree there needs to be some boundaries and regulations controlling such "religious institutions". What is the difference when those entities are hospitals, universities or self-insured health insurance providers for non-believers?

The underdog in this fight who needs their rights upheld is not the Catholic church, it is the American working woman.

Chivalry may not be the popular thing any more, but personally I'm a big fan of women. Whether it's my mother, my sisters, my wife or my daughter, I would gladly give my own life to protect and defend any of theirs.

With just as much zest I will voice my support for what I know in my heart is in their best interest, regardless of which political party benefits from that position at the time, or which church might take offense from it.

The Constitution was written with the intent to limit government and keep the "Rights" for individuals not entities.
The only way to give anything any "Rights" is to make them people. Like corporations, or churches.
Fetuses maybe, being a question of when life begins, which is a debateable subject, but that for right now, the law due to Roe v Wade, keeps abortion legal.
Our founders debated religion for years in putting it into the Constitution. I find it interesting that the very First Amendment, the first sentence, is about making sure the federal government does not favor any one religion over any other. Most came to this country to get away from that very thing. They must of found it pretty important to make it the 1st item.
The one thing they agreed on is that the law should be what mattered and not men. They wanted to make sure that even though the people in power can change, they could not change certain things due to their individual beliefs. If one uses this power to install their beliefs then what happens when someone of different beliefs gets that power? ie, sharia law. Religious beliefs are as individual as DNA and no one religion should dictate what rules this country.
If all other religions are required by law to do this, so should the Catholics. They are not being asked to sin and take birth control and the morning after pill.
Do Catholics stand by Thou Shall Not Kill when their country asked them too in the military? Is it Gods war or mans? How about when they make the Drs. and nurses work on the sabbath?
Doesn't it say in the Bible, render unto God that which is Gods, and unto Caeser that which is Caesers? Aren't employees an earthly thing?

I'm glad you are commenting on the Dispatch. It's nice to see people articulate why they believe what they believe. You sir, do a fine job of that.

The only way that a religious institution/employer can be forced to pay for birth control or abortion services is if there is actually a PATIENT who gets their insurance through this employer who requests/needs/uses this service.

Having birth control covered in a plan booklet does NOT automatically mean that the employer will pay for it. The employer will only pay if the employee uses birth control.

And, if in the case of a Catholic church employer who has a Catholic female employee; if she is following the teachings of the church, then she will NOT be using birth control. If she is using birth control, then she is not following the teaching of the church. So the cards are still in the hands of the church. Teach your members well that birth control is not condoned, and they won't have to worry about paying for it even if it IS in the plan booklet. But, as I suspect, a great many women have decided that being a baby machine is not a great idea in these times. So maybe the church needs to re-evaluate it's platform. Back in the day, large families were necessary because of short life expectancy and high infant and child mortality rates. With modernization, medical advances and an overpopulation on Earth, large families are not necessary to ensure continuation of the species any more. Maybe the church needs to modernize it's thinking as well.

As for Catholic doctors/hospitals, if they don't provide the service, then, their responsibility will be to refer the patient to a doctor/hospital that will. They will miss out on profit and possibly lose a few patients, but again, the choice is up to them. They still have a choice. This law is allowing all patients to have a choice as well.

Do not think of this as "forcing" the church to provide this or that. Think of it as providing equal opportunity for all.

But they aren't forcing them to "purchase insurance for something that goes against their beliefs". They are purchasing insurance for whatever ailments they may be afflicted with or accidents that may happen. Isn't that why we all purchase insurance? If no one ever got sick or injured, none of us would ever need insurance. They aren't purchasing "birth control insurance", they are purchasing insurance that covers many things.

I may not be in favor of Rx drugs for depression, or kids with ADHD. I may not be in favor of reconstructive surgery. I may never need a root canal, or hip replacement, but guess what? All of those things are covered by the insurance policy provided by my employer. Does that mean I MUST give my kid a prescription if he has ADHD? Does it mean I MUST take a prescription if I become depressed? Does it mean I must have my hips and knees replaced? No. It means that IF the occasion arrises, and IF I choose to, those things are available to me and covered by my insurance. Does it mean that my employer must pay for the covered items I never use? Not at all. The premiums that are paid by my employer and myself are paying for an insurance plan. And we have insurance just in case we should ever need it.

What if your employer is a Scientologist, and because of that, they don't want to provide any insurance at all? Or if they are only into herbal medicine, so they only provide insurance for homeopathic remedies? And by whatever stroke of fate that is the only job you can get at the moment. Better than no job at all, right? Should you be denied affordable health care because your employer doesn't think you should have it?

It turns out that adding insurance for birth control costs the churches nothing--because the insurance carriers add nothing to the premiums when birth control is added to the policies.

You can look it up.

...therefore, birth control is not "health care". Furthermore, John Brown is correct. Insurance companies will simply spread out the cost of "free" birth control to all employers and pretend like they are providing it for free. It is a ridiculous sleight-of-hand, and Catholics aren't falling for it.